Your search
Results 2 resources
-
Evolutionary approaches are gaining popularity in conservation science, with diverse strategies applied in efforts to support adaptive population outcomes. Yet conservation strategies differ in the type of adaptive outcomes they promote as conservation goals. For instance, strategies based on genetic or demographic rescue implicitly target adaptive population states whereas strategies utilizing transgenerational plasticity or evolutionary rescue implicitly target adaptive processes. These two goals are somewhat polar: adaptive state strategies optimize current population fitness, which should reduce phenotypic and/or genetic variance, reducing adaptability in changing or uncertain environments; adaptive process strategies increase genetic variance, causing maladaptation in the short term, but increase adaptability over the long term. Maladaptation refers to suboptimal population fitness, adaptation refers to optimal population fitness, and (mal)adaptation refers to the continuum of fitness variation from maladaptation to adaptation. Here, we present a conceptual classification for conservation that implicitly considers (mal)adaptation in the short-term and long-term outcomes of conservation strategies. We describe cases of how (mal)adaptation is implicated in traditional conservation strategies, as well as strategies that have potential as a conservation tool but are relatively underutilized. We use a meta-analysis of a small number of available studies to evaluate whether the different conservation strategies employed are better suited toward increasing population fitness across multiple generations. We found weakly increasing adaptation over time for transgenerational plasticity, genetic rescue, and evolutionary rescue. Demographic rescue was generally maladaptive, both immediately after conservation intervention and after several generations. Interspecific hybridization was adaptive only in the F1 generation, but then rapidly leads to maladaptation. Management decisions that are made to support the process of adaptation must adequately account for (mal)adaptation as a potential outcome and even as a tool to bolster adaptive capacity to changing conditions.
-
Evolutionary biologists have long trained their sights on adaptation, focusing on the power of natural selection to produce relative fitness advantages while often ignoring changes in absolute fitness. Ecologists generally have taken a different tack, focusing on changes in abundance and ranges that reflect absolute fitness while often ignoring relative fitness. Uniting these perspectives, we articulate various causes of relative and absolute maladaptation and review numerous examples of their occurrence. This review indicates that maladaptation is reasonably common from both perspectives, yet often in contrasting ways. That is, maladaptation can appear strong from a relative fitness perspective, yet populations can be growing in abundance. Conversely, resident individuals can appear locally adapted (relative to nonresident individuals) yet be declining in abundance. Understanding and interpreting these disconnects between relative and absolute maladaptation, as well as the cases of agreement, is increasingly critical in the face of accelerating human-mediated environmental change. We therefore present a framework for studying maladaptation, focusing in particular on the relationship between absolute and relative fitness, thereby drawing together evolutionary and ecological perspectives. The unification of these ecological and evolutionary perspectives has the potential to bring together previously disjunct research areas while addressing key conceptual issues and specific practical problems. © 2019 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.